City Council on 2025-09-16 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 09-16-25 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2025-09-16 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
09-16-25
18:00
64 2 0 2 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
City Council on 2025-09-16 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 09-16-25 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
H.9. 25-1213 APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH STELLEN DESIGN
LLC TO PROVIDE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES FOR UPDATING THE KING HARBOR GATEWAY SIGN FOR A COST NOT TO EXCEED $9,430
1 0 1 0
N.1. 25-1108 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON
ESTABLISHING A LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM FOR THE CITY
OF REDONDO BEACH
1 0 1 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for H.9. 25-1213 APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH STELLEN DESIGN LLC TO PROVIDE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES FOR UPDATING THE KING HARBOR GATEWAY SIGN FOR A COST NOT TO EXCEED $9,430 Overall Sentiment
David Waldner
Location:
Submitted At: 6:36am 09-15-25
I strongly oppose redesigning the King Harbor sign, other than to update the lower sign board portion to delete the Portofino Inn reference. I am particularly opposed to incorporating the new City logo as most long-term residents absolutely hate the new logo. The sign obviously needs maintenance, but not a redesign. This sign has been in place for well over 50 years. Leave it alone.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 25-1108 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ESTABLISHING A LEGISLATIVE ACTION
PLATFORM FOR THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Overall Sentiment
Brianna Egan
Location:
Submitted At: 7:34pm 09-16-25
There are several items in this draft platform that I do not support and I do not think it reflects the priorities of residents of the City of Redondo Beach. The document is not internally consistent: To support Economic Development Item #4 it would be important for the city to support housing development opportunities to have attract and retain workers in the aerospace industry and defense. Thus, the city would want to support housing development in other cities like El Segundo, but this is negated by Housing Item #2 which includes state legislation that would require cities like El Segundo to plan and zone for more housing.
Additionally: I am unclear on the meaning of Public Safety Item #4 particularly with "parking-related funding." I do not support Transportation Item #2 - for public transit systems to work and serve us best, we should enable regional-level planning instead of fragmented local control. I think more can be added to the Transportation section to support active transportation (bike lanes) and public transit more broadly. I would caution against adopting this document for the unintended consequences of a very prescriptive legislative platform. If seeking to represent residents' views, polling should be done on priorities and platforms before proceeding.